When Prohibition took effect, did you have to empty your wine cellar?

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@MPB_in_Salt_Lake

It is still illegal to bring ANY alcohol into the state of Utah that was not originally purchaced here in Utah.

…

Naturally! Because in some jurisdictions, once they start to allow something they want to tax it, and make sure that they get to tax every drop anyone gets to drink in that state. There’s one or two other states that the wine stores here tell you they can’t ship to because of local laws, although there’s no question that alcoholic beverages exist legally there.

[Balthisar]

@qazwart

The Utah State officials (either the Tax Comission or UDABC) recently asked the US Customs Agents (the only ones who actually go thru your stuff upon your arrival back in Salt Lake) working the SLC airport to inform them of wayward Utahns bold enough to try bringing back a bottle of mezcal from Mazatlan or Seagrams from Saskatoon, but the Feds told the Utah officials that it was not their place to enforce Utah’s wierdo liquor laws…

I don’t know. The feds crossing from Nuevo Laredo into Texas sure as heck made it a point to direct me to the Texas liquor tax booth. I had a Michigan plate and had no intention of drinking or leaving my booze in Texas. Luckily they never try that B.S. when passing through DFW.

[Neptunian_Slug]

@qazwart

That’s really an interesting question. Today, there is no question that the federal government could ban controlled substances, but that theory wasn’t necessarily true back then.

For example, opium wasn’t technically illegal. But, in order to buy or sell opium, you had to buy a tax stamp for it, and the government didn’t sell tax stamps for opium. No one was sure that the federal government had the right to regulate such things within a state. That’s why they went with the tax stamp business with opium.

States could easily ban booze and many did, but that didn’t prevent people from going to the next state and stocking up. I would assume that the federal government, under the commerce clause could ban the interstate trade of alcohol, and maybe require tax stamps and not sell tax stamps like they did for opium and heroin.

I think it really came down to that the forces for prohibition could get 3/4ths of the states to pass the amendment, and thus make it almost impossible to make booze legal ever again. Part of the prohibition movement was part of the women’s movement. Part of it was anti-immigration movement (Rum, Romanism, and Revolution!), part of it was a nativist movement, and part of it was popularism.

Irony is that the nation was so sick of prohibition that when state conventions were called to ratify the 21st amendment, even Utah voted for repealing prohibition.

I would classify the push for anti-abortion and anti-flag burning amendments as a bit different. Congress could have regulated alcohol without the 18th amendment. However, the Supreme Court has ruled that you have a constitutional right to abortion and burning the flag and has struck down laws that would prohibit these activities. Thus, the only way to ban these activities would be a constitutional amendment.

Agreed. Nothing stopped Congress from passing a Federal law to ban liquor. Many different types of prohibition laws were passed, mainly with the goal of stopping import into dry states. Enforcement was pretty sloppy especially since states don’t guard their borders the way countries do.

But the temperance folks went for a Constutional Amendment because they could. They had the votes to pass an amendment. And I am sure they figured that it would hold up until the end of time. Laws don’t quite have the same force. They can be invalidated by courts, they can be repealed more easily than amendments. But they didn’t ‘need’ it. The Supreme Court had never ruled that there was a constitutional right to manufacture, sell or import intoxicating liquors.

As to the question why they didn’t pass a Constutional amendment to ban the sale of drugs? The Anti Saloon League and the WCTU didn’t ask for one. I believe that it would have passed if they had. But alcohol was their demon and that’s what they focused on. The Harrison Act had been in force since 1914 and nothing more was needed I guess.

[Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus]

@qazwart

For example, opium wasn’t technically illegal. But, in order to buy or sell opium, you had to buy a tax stamp for it, and the government didn’t sell tax stamps for opium. No one was sure that the federal government had the right to regulate such things within a state. That’s why they went with the tax stamp business with opium.

.

I was not aware of this ever being done with regard to opium. The classic example in the area of drug law is the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, which applied that mechanism to pot. Was opium at one time absolutely banned, or was this only opium meant to be smoked?

Opium is now legally brought into the U.S. by the pharmaceutic manufacturers, imported mostly from Turkey. (There are some interesting proposals mentioned in the link about possibly legitimizing the Afghan growers to supply the world market.)